The Trident Debate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6205174.stm

Every time I hear a debate about nuclear weapons, you hear some politician rattling on about
how this country needs to defend itself against other such nuclear nations.

How on earth do you use a nuclear weapon as a defense weapon???????

Surely if some launched a strike at any one of the NATO countries the response would almost wipe out any civilisation anyway. It all seems a bit pointless to me.

Reminds seem rather strangely of that scene in Resevoir Dogs where everyones pointing a gun at each other and one fires they all fire and end up dead.

What do you think???

I personally think money should be spent where its needed most.

if i'm going to deal my cocaine with the man on the street and i know he's got a big stick i'm going to make sure i take a big stick with me too.

Mutually Assured Destruction.

It is near impossible to stop a ballistic missile once launched. We don't need a new system as it's all sabre rattling.

Originally Posted by keithd

if i'm going to deal my cocaine with the man on the street and i know he's got a big stick i'm going to make sure i take a big stick with me too.

Sticks are no use launched from a Submarine as they get all slimy and break easily!

But thanks!

I don't really care, at the moment nuclear weapons act more as a deterrent to stop others launching against us, kinda like the Cold War where America and Russia built up their arsenal.

If we stopped being a nuclear power, then we would have to rely on allies to act as the deterrent. Admittedly if one ever gets launched it'll be goodbye Earth.

[Viney]

Originally Posted by keithd

if i'm going to deal my cocaine with the man on the street and i know he's got a big stick i'm going to make sure i take a big stick with me too.

Hows the X5?

Originally Posted by Viney

Hows the X5?

bitchin'

My fave all time Triumph bike. Wish ihad gone and bought one in that sexy purple and white colour scheme. ........What?

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Mogs

Mutually Assured Destruction.

Fine, but MAD stops working when the launcher doesn't care about a nuclear response, ie, they are mental/a fundamentalist/plain evil. Considering how non-independant our independant deterrant is, it's all a bit of a joke. But being a "nuclear superpower" apparently gives you extra political clout. Doesn't seem to bother the japanese too much, but then they've learned the hard lessons of Godzilla.

Personally, I'm all for the Trident system. At the end of the day, all they're doing is replacing what already exists. Nothing in the Trident project is new.

For those that haven't taken the time to read, for any reason, here's basically how the Trident system works:
-You have a handful of nuclear powered submarines (nothing new here but the cores are getting old, so need replacing by 2014 or they can't be used).
-You have a handful of rockets (Trident rockets to be exact) and several nuclear warheads on each submarine, with more in reserve should they be needed.
-Each rocket holds X warheads, and can target independantly of other warheads on that rocket (the actual launch sequence includes warhead armourment (individually) & target setting, gas propulsion to the surface where the rocket takes over. Here it gets a GPS lock, sets itself up, and flies at 20,000ft/second towards target. Once at a predertermined spot, the rocket motors drop off, it takes another GPS lock, adjusts position, and drops warheads on shedule (again, individually). The warheads take GPS lock (or can be configured to laser guide, but I wouldn't like that job!) & direct themselves from the upper atmosphere release to the final target).

Each warhead is the same power as 8 Hiroshimas. Each rocket has a max range of 5000 miles. There's only ever one trident submarine on active duty, and there's always enough staff to man a second sub "on-call", with others in reserve with a slightly slower response time.

OK, so lets assume for a minute the Iranians try to Nuke us. We realisitically wouldn't know the target of any nuclear weapon until it was too late, it's just that simple. So the knee jerk reaction would be to nuke them back. The submarines have an advantage here that it takes a lot longer for nuclear fall out to affect the underwater world than it does dry land.

So basically, it's all a big deterrant. "If you launch, we have a system where we can sit & wait for a couple of months, then retaliate, if we need to. Oh, and by the way, that system can also take out a couple of countries completely with a single rocket. Launch if you dare!"

I prefer that to the "Oh Sh*t, they have nuclear weapons, if they launch, we're screwed!" attitude.